if you love hurting kiddies
or killing huns or nasties or mozzies

you go to the place where the kiddies are
who love to hurt..*only each-other
you become that you hate

thus are *as hated and despised
as those you chose to hate /despise

[but only others hating /despising
the same 'things'..as you]

recall jesus said
mine fathers house has many rooms
some in heaven..others in hell]

we chose our room
by that we chose to love

what i hate is we have days where death is beatup
but not days where we are taught the next bit
the forever/eternal bit..
*that comes after they died

how good would it be to be free of fear
to do good fearlessly..knowing evil simply cant hurt you
and in the end we all get justice..and they get what they want too
ie they chose it..by loving the pervesions the chose to love

there are in 'that part of heaven'..we call hell
eternal wars..

you can die a hero's
or a cowards death millions of times
for eternity if this is your wish

then get right back up
and get killed again
and again
and again

its groundhog day

till you decide you want something better
yearn for something better..

but the better thing..
is not a 'thing'

davidf,
the situation seems hopeless. Looking at it objectively, indeed indifferently, your question seems to imply that the human world as it is is worth preserving. I don't believe it is. Or at least its being worthy of preserving lies for me in its capacity for positive change--sadly, I can't see there's much of that so perhaps the sooner we wipe each other out the better.

However, in the context of competition for wealth and resources we've dominated, a good way to start might be to dismantle the west's monopoly. Since wealthy nations have shown themselves to be spectacularly unwilling to make sacrifices in the interests of equity (indeed they've thrived on exploiting inequities), it's ironic that global capitalism is in the process of exacting just that--fairer terms of trade, though sadly more in the interests of capital than altruism or equity. This automated programme of economic reform (market growth) will never be accomplished of course because the whole thing will collapse or the planet will die first. In any case the west would lose its dominance, and it won't cede that. But at least the shift of wealth will to some extent reciprocate the poverty that's been visited on the Earth's poorer real estate hitherto. The west will be all guns blazing, however, before the transition effects the quality, so same ol' same ol' and it's not going to help the anti-war effort.

The only other thing I can suggest is that we stop romanticising past conflicts and the military--the perennial instrument of man's worst excesses. I would say we should only wage war in defence, but we've made war big business and we can't expect the big players not to use their new toys.

Sorry, nothing positive to say.

Dear Squeers,

Capitalism is a devil on which one can blame all the ills of the world. However, it is pointless to do so. Wars did not start with the advent of capitalism nor will they cease with the demise of capitalism.

It ignores history to set up capitalism as a devil on which to blame the ills of the world. The problem is deeper than capitalism. Industrialisation whether socialist or capitalist has much the same effect. Capitalism in its modern form is a recent phenomenon.

Whether or not the human world is worth preserving is another issue. I identify with my species.

True enough David.
Human history is replete with one form of domination or another over the exploited and disempowered, our former masters aristocracy of one form or another. Capitalism is just the latest tyranny, but the most dangerous and entrenched to date. I suspect, because it it's so broadly distributed--though still within a small minority--its ideological bi-product quickening social emulation.
I can see why Marx conceived human progress in economic terms; communism is the logical next step if we consider that the collective wealth has been progressively more evenly distributed. It hasn't really of course--generation of wealth has simply become more efficient, a science, and the crumbs are more plentiful--so long as you're near the apron of the table.
Whatever the evils of the past were, capitalism is the evil of the present. So long as it prevails we must find our solace in heaven.

"Industrialisation whether socialist or capitalist has much the same effect".
I disagree there. Give credit where it's due. Capitalism is its own industrial dynamic, it cultivates and harnesses human industry, whereas failed socialism only forced it. Capitalism will be the death of us because it can't be moderated.
Wars meanwhile promote growth.

David f.,

Your initial question was - "Can we act rationally to attack the causes of war?"

Well, wars usually arise in the wake of an ideological justification, emanating from a contention over territory and/or resources.
As you point out, belligerence seems to come with the human deal. Although we have the intellectual capacity to rationalise against hostile action, unfortunately we employ the same talent to reason in favour of conflict....our rationalisation toward aggression, in the case of a threat to our wellbeing and security, seems more compatible with our instinctual behaviour.

Therefore, it doesn't appear to be a realistic assumption that man will one day have the willpower to overcome his warlike nature.

Dear Squeers,

Capitalism has been moderated in Sweden so it can be moderated.

I disagree with your statement "capitalism is the evil of the present." Capitalism is one of the forces in the present. It is 'the evil' sounds like a fundamentalist preacher. I don't agree that capitalism is an evil. It is an economic system which has been controlled in certain circumstances. I don't agree that communism is the next step. We don't know what the next step is.

Poirot, you may be completely correct.